The story. The winners of the My Dream App competition were announced recently, but there might have been something you didn't know. For those serious Apple-news-watchers, this is really old news (October 26 - the day before the winners were announced), but for many QJ readers and casual Apple fans, you might not have heard about it yet.

The fourth-place finisher, Kevin Capizzi, made a post on the My Dream App (MDA) forums that said:

MDA brought to my attention this morning, that there was someone, that I know personally, who was gaming the vote system. It is with a heavy heart that I have to say this. And I realize this puts my integrity on the line. For what it's worth, I want to go on record, that I never condoned any such action or behavior, I did not know it was even going on ... I'm going to decline any prizes being offered (i.e. the Mac Mini, Office Suite, and the Tshirt). It's the only thing I know ... to help restore the trust from everyone here.

According to an Ars Technica journal entry, there were 514 votes from two IP addresses. This was the fraud that nearly got Hijack to win. When the MDA was asked if they can be sure that there weren't any other fraud attempts, the answer was "there's no way to prevent 100% any fraud in any election."

Our reaction. Now, a few days after the results have been announced, we can look at this with cool, level, and rational minds.

Fraud in elections is a real thing that we all have to risk. Still, it is an amazing act of courage on the part of Kevin Capizzi, and that is what this article is really about. We applaud him for his integrity, and we congratulate the winners, and we look forward to the next MDA competition.

The presence of fraud should never make us lose our perspective: the real votes count, the real talent matters, and all the Dream App ideas are worth praising. When the next MDA comp comes around, we'll still be there to vote and cheer. We hope you will too.

A game doesn't just work because it's fun - it has to be fully compatible with the "platform" it's been programmed for. It should also be programmed to exploit the full capabilities of such platform. We're not about to pitch the iPod into the next-gen console wars here, as the iPod, the fifth generation one to be exact, can only play songs, TV shows, movies, podcasts, and games. Yeah, games! But only a handful of 'em including Bejeweled, Tetris, Mahjong, Zuma, Pacman, Texas Hold'em, - in short, games that don't need uber-awesome graphics or complex programming.

So, if you were given the chance to tell Apple what games you'd want to play in the iPod, which ones would you pick? There's one condition, though: it has to be compatible with the click wheel interface. It also has to be a single player game (for the time being).

Michael from AppleGazette thought the following games would be cool for the iPod: Myst, Sim City, Tapper, Vegas Casino, Spy Hunter, Pool, Centipede, Space Invaders, Sudoku, and Star Trek Starship Creator.

We thought Space Invaders, Myst, Sudoku, and Sim City would be excellent for the iPod. Some of these are classics and take advantage of the click wheel. Putting them in the iPod game line-up would far improve their playability and navigability; you won't have to worry about having to play the game using the cellphone's bulky controls.

If these games get included in the line-up of some rather dopy games we see in the iPod today, we'd have to ask Apple for another favor: get them online, too! That won't be stretching too much now, would it?

  

This should spark some debates among the die-hard Apple-addicts reading this. Analyst house Gartner says that if Apple wants long-term success, it should do what game firm Sega did in response to the Sony PlayStation 2 and Microsoft Xbox. In case you're not a gamer, what Sega did was to retire from the game console manufacturing business and concentrate on software publishing and development.

Yep. In an ambitious analytical report, entitled "Apple Should License the Mac to Dell," Gartner is suggesting exactly that. Apple licenses Mac-making to Dell, and quit hardware manufacturing altogether, to concentrate on OS and software.

Why, oh why must Cupertino give up on those little bundles of computing joy to Dell? Same reason Sega bailed on their Dreamcast: competition. In Apple's case, Gartner believes that increasing market pressure will cut into Apple's profit margins with the Mac. This is because Apple is recently using Intel chips, which is also a big reason for a surge in Mac popularity, says Gartner. They also say that Intel, as a component maker, effectively "subsidizes" Apple production.

But with pricing pressure from other computer firms like HP, Gartner believes that Intel "cannot go on supporting Apple (or any other customer) indefinitely." Instead, Apple could license Mac production over to Dell - which also uses Intel chips, and is "Intel's closest ally" - which has a more robust production and marketing infrastructure in place. The firm even believes that by doing so, Mac OS could capture 20% of the market, and Macs themselves could become more affordable.

Will Steve Jobs take heed? Silicon.com's conclusion is that he's not worried much about Apple's position in the market - or about the competition either. Most likely not, in that case. Nothing in the report either about other Apple hardware, like the iPod and upcoming iTV. What do you guys think?

Mac OS X users are now safer from worms such as Blaster and they can thank virus-prone Windows for it.  According to the research group Gartner, Microsoft has more security plugs than Ted Danson's scalp that mass attacks have finally ceased.

Allthough the OS X has always been less attractive to attackers it doesn't translate to total invincibility. For one, Apple people are not safe from spyware. While there are not enough Macs around that make mass attacks worth the time, threats from deliberate attacks remain a possibility.

"Targeted attacks are difficult to prevent because many of them look like something that a user would do. The Mac OS puts good security around user activity, but this can still be overridden. Bottom line: pay attention to odd behaviour from any computer, it could be a hacker after your stuff. Don't just authorise anything that asks, think about it first," according to the firm.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action in this context would be the launch of the iTunes Movies, while the opposite reaction would be the retail stores' rejection of this concept.

Wal-Mart and Target have been crying foul over movie downloads appearing in the iTunes online store. According to them, this will open a whole new can of worms to the movie industry, especially if other studios join Disney in offering their movie downloads through iTunes.

Michael, over at Apple Gazette, thinks that it's not really the plight of the movie industry these retail stores are worried about, but more of their own. Apparently, they find this downloading technology to be a threat to their business. And why not? The iPod industry most certainly is a force to be reckoned with, given its broad market.

But is the iTunes Movies really a threat on Retail DVDs? Michael weighs the pros and cons.

Comparing the features of iTunes Movie and Retail DVD, it shows that the Retail DVD still has a much bigger edge than the downloadable counterpart. It has a higher video resolution, is compatible with widescreen presentation, and can be played in any DVD player in your home or car or DVD drive. Plus, there are special features included on most titles, while the iTunes Movie doesn't.

Apart from the accessibility of the products, where the iTunes Movie surges ahead since you can download and watch it almost instantly on your gadget without having to drive to the store and purchase, the only other thing that makes the downloadable movies a prettier option is the price. For US$ 12.95 to US$ 14.95, you can already download new releases. For the retail DVD, you'd need almost US$ 20 just so you can enjoy most new releases. But other than that, there certainly are no tell-tale signs as of yet of the retail DVD's apocalypse.

But beyond these considerations, really now, exactly how enjoyable would it be to watch a full-length movie on a 3-inch screen? Not so much, especially when you know you can watch the same thing, with much better quality, on your widescreen. So basically, for now, while the thought of being able to access movies on your iPod gives you that pizazz, it just doesn't seem attractively practical.

So, at the end of the day, should the retail DVD be threatened by iTunes Movies? The concern is understandable, but with all the foregoing analysis, the answer would have to be a no. Unless, of course, you think otherwise.

It's been five years now since the world's known the iPod, and with the Zune expected to be Microsoft's "iPod killer" (the Zune's a hot-sell with Xbox 360 owners, for good reason), we thought it'd be a good time to look back, and see just what one decidedly hardcore iPod fan over at foronceandforall.com thinks has kept Apple's bid to the MP3 wars so survivable. To be taken with a pinch of salt (and humor), here are his reasons:

1. The "Cool" factor
First impressions last, and most people who've seen an iPod of any sort won't forget the smooth, curved lines and white color tones it's become famous for.

2. Fame
Like it or not, the iPod is an unofficial mascot for MP3 players. Back then, there was no central idea for people to think about regarding MP3s, and the iPod's appearance became a example for those wondering what an MP3 player was, kinda like how McDonald's is the poster boy for fast food.

3. Price
Okay, so higher end products like the iPod video are a tad pricey - burn a hole in my wallet, why 'doncha - but the iPod nano and iPod shuffle are decently priced for the cash-conscious buyer keen on owning a high-end player.

More reasons after the jump!

The New York Times posted an interesting bit of news today. In France, a small group of people were trying to get themselves prosecuted for a crime they apparently did commit. The crime: playing music bought on iTunes on something that isn't made by iPod.

The protest was done by members of StopDRM, a group of computer users concerned with the growing restrictions on legally-purchased media. It was their attempt to point out just how unruly digital rights management (DRM) laws and measures can be.

They claim that the problem with digital controls and protection measures to stop piracy is that it also seems to lead to overt control of  the systems of digital media. "They say the law is intended to stop piracy, but I am not a pirate," said Jerome Martinez, one of the lead protesters in this unusual event. "I support artists with legally purchased works, but I do not want to be forced to use a particular device to play them."

That's a valid point. You have to wonder how we'll be able to choose how we play our music. Unlike earlier periods in technology, when there were fewer avenues for playing movies and music, the 21st century's given way to more freedom because of the fluidity of the digital medium. The issue now is in enforcing certain protection measures without limiting the choices into a monopoly (or a ZenZunePodocracy).

The police in the story were unsure in how they were to deal with the issue, but the message is clear. Changes need to be made in digital rights management so that we can better distinguish between what should be all right and what is certainly wrong.

John Martellaro has an article up on Mac News World that tries to shed light on issues that drive Apple's relationships with the business world, Apple's plans to expand, and the issues that could trouble them.

Here are the five issues he identified and a little bit on how it affects Apple's business sales:

Degrees of Freedom - Apple does its best to comply with government regulations, but handle them behind the scenes so that managers and engineers in the company can just focus on work. They have very minimalist and simple policies, but they enforce them strictly.

Because of this, employees feel a degree of freedom and empowerment working for Apple. As to how they interact to other businesses Martellaro says that Apple says this: Here's the product we're selling today, take it or leave it, you'll love it. That doesn't feel so 'free' right?

Partnerships - Face it: Apple is a company that's fun to love. Apple deals with companies that often want to become related (or even a part) of this successful company. That desire to insinuate themselves into Apple's success blurs the rational distinction between fandom and client requirements. Apple is alert to this and often paradoxically distances itself when the customer is just seeking a closer relationship. Don't you want to be "closer" to your clients?

Want to know the rest? Click "Full Article" after the jump!

Back in the 1st of October, trueb*****dteddy complained of Microsoft's MSN for OS X's bitter shortcomings. Article gets dugg - from both Mac users who feel his pain, and PC users who feel a pain of a completely different sort.

What did TBT say, anyway? "Microsoft doesn't get it" with their "Universal" MSN. Why? He lists his complaints: no video and audio chat, no offline messaging, no groups, and annoying pop up dialogue boxes he doesn't need. In other words, MSN for Macs doesn't perform well compared to PC versions. He thinks that because Apple is such a small niche in the computer market, Mac users aren't a priority for Microsoft - as opposed to that larger Windows base.

Well, since that 1st of October, he'd been deluged with about six-hundred-or-so diggs that he didn't expect, as well as comments that have enlightened him on some of his complaints. Like, for example, one comment told him how to get rid of an annoying security dialog box. Another informed him that Mac-MSN actually supports groups. And the official Microsoft Mac blog released a post explaining some of the reasons why voice for Mac-MSN hasn't been implemented yet. Enlightening, yes, but it still hasn't changed his opinion of Mac-MSN.

But counterarguments can sometimes be a bit touche. After all, one Digg commenter replied "Quicktime for PC: Apple doesn't get it" (although a few replies to that comment were very critical). Another pointed out that "Rome wasn't built overnight," and neither will Mac-MSN.

Ah, all this competition between Apple users and PC users. Remember the Mac Ad? Yeah, it can be wonderful, simply wonderful, to be a cut above the rest. But does that mean you can't ever be with the rest? Nobody wants to be lonely...

For a company who is usually stringent, to the point of overbearing, when it comes to keeping up-and-coming projects under wraps until its intended announcement date, Apple's recent previews of their movie offers over at the new iTunes 7.0 has caused some suspicion among analysts. Considering Hollywood's reluctance to get on the iPod bandwagon, could this be Apple's way of letting biggie movie studios see what they could possibly be missing by not submitting to the will of the great white Apple?

As of the moment, episodes of some TV serials have already been made available for download, while Disney and some smaller Hollywood companies have already agreed to sell their movies via the internet.

For many studios such as Universal, Paramount, and Warner Bros., one main issue that seems to be unsettled is the pricing of their movies, as Hollywood execs are insisting that the price of downloading a movie should cost more than buying the physical DVD. Their reason for this is that despite the absence of further production, distribution, or inventory costs, obtaining the movies has become more convenient and should therefore cost consumers more. An episode of faulty logic? Maybe.

One thing remains more certain than other details though, and that's the fact that "iPod" has become a household term, Apple has taken over the industry of downloading music and TV shows, and almost everyone you meet down the street is sporting white earbuds. How long can Hollywood resist the dark side? We'll wait and see.